CLE @ CIN 5-24, Obstruction?
 

Anybody see Rob Drake call obstruction on Cincy's F5 on Sunday? Grady Sizemore might have barely brushed him running from 3B to home on an overthrow, gets thrown out at the plate, and then is awarded home on the OBS.

Contact is not necessary for OBS, but I didn't see Sizemore have to move at all.

Naturally, the commentator in the video calls it "interference." :rolleyes:

Here's the link.

Even MLB.com is calling it INT. (Says so in the caption) Although I have a rough connection at home right now (just a little choppy) it looks like a simple call to me. The runner, although slight, did adjust his running path due to F5 in the basepath.

With a good connection, I agree. F5 was in the basepath.

Also, the announcer called it a "triple with an interference error"

I don't see OBS there.

Had the F5 caused the runner to deviate his path in the slightest, it would have been obstruction. However, I did not see what Drake apparently saw. I saw the runner run right past F5 with no deviation in his path. He just got thrown out at the plate. Looked like a bad call to me.

Agreed. I really didn't see Sizemore changing his path at all. F5 didn't do anything to slow him down or obstruct him. Drake kicked it.

I was watching that game live yesterday with my adult son. He knows that I never get animated about an officials "call" during any sport....except yesterday.
Knowing that every umpire make mistakes, and the fact that MLB showed replays from like 7 different angles after it happened, I just cant see how that call was even made.

Or maybe, because Im a Reds fan, I wonder if I'm suffering from that mental disease that we've all seen, during our games, when fans complain on our good calls---fan bias!
Help me, doctor!

That's a little picky to be calling obstruction... I would have nothing.

Rob Drake had a completely different angle than we did. Also, he got rid of his mullett...sooooo I give him the benefit of the doubt.

But look at this other clip...do you notice anything on the play at the plate? Do you see a tag?

Joe in Missouri

Yes, Hanigan very clearly never touched Sizemore. The phantom obstruction call wasn't even necessary. How ironic.

I disagree...even with that view from a camera in slo-mo, it's hard to see (tag or no tag). How on earth can the PU make any other call...I think he got it right, from his view, making that split-second decision....Good call in my book....Like they say, hind sight.....

All you kids are right... there was a phantom tag!

WITH THAT SAID! IT IS OBSTRUCTION. ANY DEVIATION OF HIS PATH IS! THAT LITTLE SHOULDER LEAN! OBSTRUCTION! YOU CAN PICK ON MLB GUYS ALL YOU WANT! DRAKE IS RIGHT! REPEAT! DRAKE IS RIGHT!

And that is why you guys are not in pro ball! It is a different interpretation at the MiLB/MLB level. The player should know better.

Ticky tacky call? So where do you draw the line? If he bulldozes him... okay I will call it? Your job is to enforce the rules, BLACK AND WHITE!

Dont give me this FED, Little League, PONY bull. Those kids are not professionals!

I say... good call! WAIT... I KNOW GOOD CALL!

He called it, but if I were doing a clinic for umpires, this would be one of those that I would use to say, "this is NOT obstruction".

He never interfered with the runners path, he simply moved his shoulder just a little to get past the fielder. The runner did not lose any momentum.

I think the replay shows the umpires was really watching the ball until the last second when he looks at the runner just as he passes the fielder. He then immediately calls the obstruction.

Does make you wonder what he saw that doesn't show on the video though ...

Thansk
David

OBR definition says you are wrong..

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner

You must be able to state that the act impeded the progress of the runner.

(definition of impeded - made difficult or slow; )

Did this occur on this play, would he have been out if it had not occurred is the true question........

Looked like a timely tag just below the left knee, the view of which was blocked in that clip by the runner's arm. Or . . . maybe not. PU looked like he had a good view of it.

I disagree. I have never really liked the 1st base line for plays like this, and it looks like from his angle that there is no way he could see the tag, or lack thereof. 3BLX (or a less exaggerated move from the point of the plate toward 1st base would have given him a clear shot at the air gap between glove and shoulder. I didn't see anything below the knee. I'll take another 5 looks at it.

Uh, not so fast there, Brer Rabbit
 

There are many reasons why this is the case, but this is not one of them.:cool:

So then, how did the fielder impede the runner?

I've seen the clip and I'm ambivalent about the call, to be honest. He called it and the mechanics he used were outstanding, but the call itself? I don't have the same angle he had, so ....

Was listening to this game while driving home yesterday afternoon, and the announcer went on for innings about how it was a terrible call because there was no contact, implying you cannot have "interference" (sic) without contact.

Well, as usual, the announcers are flat out wrong. But I don't think there was "obstruction" either, but not because of no contact, but because of no obstruction. The runner did not have to deviate from his route, and the little amount he had to clear the fielder by lifting his shoulder did not affect the outcome of the play.

esp at the pro level, altering his path, even the slightest, can be the difference between safe and out. i guess that's why they get paid the big bucks, while the guys in the show aren't perfect either, they get a lot of them right...esp these types of calls.

From the TV angles, I don't see Sizemore being impeded. Rob Drake did from his angle and sold the heck out of it so there you have it.

And again...Drake got rid of his Mullet ...let's give him some support! I don't want him to fall off the wagon.

Joe in Missouri

Even if it was obstruction, it was only type b, since the ball had long since left the area. So you're only going to make up for what was lost by the obstruction, which was absolutely nothing. The runner didn't lose a step, nor vary his path.

I'm okay with him calling it(not really, but...), but not for them to change their call based on it.

If losing a run is nothing...then...

johnny,

In order for the defense to be "making a play" on a runner, some member of the defense must have possession of the ball or a throw must be on the way in an attempt to retire the runner.

Since the defense was "chasing after a loose ball" at the time the obstruction alledgely occurred, it had to be Type B.

JM

got it...thx. I mixed up this play w/ a different video being discussed. I stand corrected...thx for pointing that out.

You are mistaken on your OBR application. He was not in posesion of the ball! Therefore, OBSTRUCTION. Also... all of this post can be cleared up by reading the MLB (or PBUC if you do not have one) Manual! This is obstruction! Sorry guys, but it is. There is no degree of obstruction. Full fledge or the slightest... its still obstruction.

And you are all right about showing Drake some support. The guy has been working his tail off since 99' with no contract or no pension plan! DRAKE... GOOD CALL!

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I will default with the written rule.
You didnt answer the question either.
How was the runners progress impeded?

Sure there is.

First, you've got two types, a and b. Type a is an automatic award of the next base, whereas b is a judgement call on negating the actual impedement. Giving him the plate was not an automatic. So for type b, there really are degrees for obstruction.

I just said to give him support for his lack of a mullet.

He is paid the amount that they said they would pay him-so what is the problem? He chooses to work without a contract or pension. Most everyone in the USA works without a contract and almost NOBODY has a pension.

That is not a degree. It is two different types. Labeled types a and b, because it has two different stipulations. If a play is being made or not. That is not a degree of obstruction, its labeling obstruction based on a important stipulation, which there in sense gives a different penalty.

And yes... you are going with the rule written in section 2.00, but if you look up 7.06 types a and b, and also MLB Manual 6.20 and 6.23 You will see why Drake enforced his call.

I AM GONNA SHOUT THIS! MLB UMPIRES, AND THAT IS WHO WE ARE CRITICIZING ON THIS POST... DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT GO WITH THE OBR ALONE. You can direct all the comments you want at me and say how wrong I am and how a I don't know bull. But here is the long and short of it. I sent a email to a MLB ump who was assured by Mike Port (VP of umpiring) that the call was correct by Rob Drake. So... take that video and study it, if you want to enforce things like a MLB ump.

WELL DONE ROB DRAKE!

I didn't see obstruction.

I didn't see a tag.

This isnt about whether he is a major league umpire, it is about interpretation of the OBR rules. Some on this forum have stated that with the information given they would not have called obstruction. (this is of course is a judgment made by each of us on this forum)


You still have neglected to answer the question proposed to you.

How was the runners progress impeded? I feel that this question is pivotal in this scenario (as does OBR rules)

I would also ask you if you would adamantly state that the wrong call was made if no obstruction had been called on this particular play by this particular umpire. I feel by your posts that you would support his actions just because of who he is. (I hope I'm wrong)
I dont think anyone here doubts the fact that these guys are the best at this profession, but none of us are perfect and opining on calls like this only make us better.

Somebody post a picture of the jockstrap, please. Sniff, sniff.

Don Denkinger just called to express his support for Maz17.

Well now, Maz, when we see something that could be incorrect, and is at least worthy of discussion (like this OBS call), we will discuss it and, just maybe, throw in a little criticism if we felt a rule was misapplied or a call was missed. Doesn't matter if it's a LL, HS, college, or pro umpire. No need to shout.

And to my knowlege the criticism in this thread has been of the constructive, how do we do that better when we see it, variety.

If you're gonna go and name drop like that, tell us what the e-mail said. What was the explanation? How does MLB interpret obstruction? In the absence of the MLB Umpire Manual, which the general public cannot purchase, all I and most other umpires here have is what is written in OBR and the various commentaries on the rules, such as Evans, J/R, etc. I don't want to enforce things like an MLB umpire if I do not know the rationale behind my call.

If anyone cares, I thought is was obstruction when I saw the video, but if he passed on it I could completely understand why. I wouldn't say the umpire kicked it either way.